https://youtu.be/SX4mGgGrt3M?si=x9dMYta5gTk8s6FN
Mercouris makes certain predictions for the consequences of defeat at Avdeyevka and general Russian military superiority, on NATO and the EU, which are totally plausible but also completely irrational.
He anticipates a re-evaluation of energy policies and a stronger push for energy independence from Russian gas and oil, whereas the rational thing to do to would be to recognise the business flight from high-cost Europe and reopen the pipelines.
He also foresees a more unified EU strategy to deal with external threats ie accelerate an EU defense union and more collaboration on defense procurement and research. This implies growing independence from America in the military field. That's got to be a good thing but let's be realistic - in an earlier post here, we talked about the original EU axis being West-East France and Germany, and that now with EU expansion the axis looks to be North-South Germany and the former Soviet states, with France and Germany suffering bitter relations as a consequence. For example at Airbus where Germany is taking most of the new work away from France, or where Germany is procuring from the American defence industry, which is strangling the French Armaments industry. So don't expect a collaboration which might re-ignite the French defense and aerospace industries.
What to do about this split between France and Germany? It goes right to the heart of the EU, thus proving once again how useless that organisation is, not fit for the purpose of pursuing European interests.
The subject is Peace and Conflict Resolution In an increasingly uncertain world comprised of more and more powerful nation states. If America is the aggressor and the EU is completely neutralised and cannot deal with what is seen as threats from Russia, perhaps the debate should move more properly to the United Nations.
But anyone who thinks like that would want to see some strong action in the short term from the UN over the situation in Gaza ...and be dissapointed ... what can the UN do about breaches of its resolutions, of international law, about aggression and territorial disputes, about non-state actors even, when Israel, backed by the US, says "Hague Schmague"?
This is why we are back to Alexander Mearsheimer and his "structural offensive realism", which means balance-of-power geopolitics and individual states tackling head-on their perceived security problems because there's no one else willing to.
And yet this is a recipe for the next World War as it just pushes nation-states that are increasingly anxious about the intentions of others in a uncertain world, to join into hostile alliances led by wannabe regional hegemons.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean, keep it lean